PABLO GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's appeal of denial of post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he did not satisfy the Strickland test requiring proof that counsel failed to communicate a plea offer, that he would have accepted it if properly advised, and that acceptance would have resulted in a lesser sentence.
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to communicate a plea offer must prove: (1) counsel failed to communicate or misinformed him about the plea offer, (2) he would have accepted the offer if correctly advised, and (3) acceptance would have resulted in a lesser sentence.
[1] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to communicate a plea offer must prove that counsel failed to communicate or misinform a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePablo Gomez appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, arguing that trial counsel's ineffective assistance caused him to reject the Sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Offer Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Pablo Gomez, appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
At the evidentiary hearing, the defendant argued that he turned down the State’s plea offer as a result of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance. A review of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant failed to satisfy the test for establishing a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)(“In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.”); Hoffman v. State, 827 So. 2d 1046, 1048-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(holding that in claim by defendant that counsel’s ineffective assistance caused him to turn down State’s plea offer, “defendant must prove 1) that his counsel failed to communicate or misinformed him about a plea offer, 2) that he would have accepted the plea offer had he been correctly advised, and 3) that his acceptance of the plea offer would have resulted in a lesser sentence”). As such, the trial court’s order denying the 3.850 motion is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
FOX v. State, 895 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…plea offer had he been correctly advised, and that the acceptance of the plea offer would have resulted in a lesser sentence. See Owens v. State, 792 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gomez v. State, 874 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Nataly Viehweider v. State, 827 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Hoffman v. State, 827 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)